Appeal No.	 EAT/839/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 17 February 2000

Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAROLD WILSON
MR A C BLYGHTON
MRS R CHAPMAN

(1) MR J K WHEELER (2) MRS H NEWTON	APPELLANTS

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	MISS M TETHER
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Mr A James
Messrs Thompsons
Solicitors
Percy House
Percy Street
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE1 4QW

	JUDGE WILSON:	This is preliminary hearing of the appeal by the original applicants against the dismissal of their cases by the Employment Tribunal. The proposed appellants today have been represented by Ms Tether.

1.	There has been an amended ground of appeal put in on 4th February 2000 and the first issue for us was whether or not leave should be granted for those amended grounds to go forward. So far as the respondent County Council was concerned, they have written to this tribunal to suggest that the matter should be sent to the Chairman first for his comments and we have considered that. Bearing in mind that the first concessions made by Ms Tether this morning before us were to abandon those allegations in the original grounds of appeal which suggested bias either personally in the Chairman or the conduct of proceedings, it seems to us that there is no call to seek the Chairman’s comments upon the grounds of appeal as they stand. Accordingly, we make that finding and observation.

2.	So far as the case itself is concerned, the applicants worked for the County Council in the Architectural and Quantity Surveying Group of the Environment and Technical Services Department. There came a time when there was restructuring of that department, partly at any rate due to the creation of a unitary authority in Darlington which removed large numbers of staff to fresh employers.

3.	Within the restructured department, there was a post for which these applicants applied, saying that it was the equivalent of the one which they had been covering anyway and claiming it should have been therefore ring-fenced. It was advertised, which was different to previous practice, and which allowed the candidature of a male person who was junior and less experienced to these two female applicants. It was he who was eventually appointed. The applicants say that the way the matter was handled amounted to sex discrimination under the statute. 

4.	The respondents say that it was a new post to fulfil a different role in the newly formed department. They claimed that the successful candidate was appointed purely on merit. They denied unlawful discrimination and they made a suggestion that the hearings should be postponed until the grievance procedure had been exhausted or abandoned. That has in fact happened.

5.	Having heard Ms Tether this morning, we are satisfied that the matter should proceed to full argument on the grounds set out in paragraphs 3 to 10 inclusive of the amended Grounds of Appeal for which we give the necessary leave to file.

6.	We direct that the Chairman’s Notes of the cross-examination of Mr W H Johnson, Mrs H Hirst and Mr I K R Hodgson should be made available for the hearing of the full argument. We further direct that skeleton argument should be exchanged at least 14 days before the date specified for the full hearing of the appeal. The case  is listed as Category C with a time estimate of one day.